Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Using the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator. I find Fs to be Democrats, and Ts to be Republicans. Mostly that is.

Considering Ts use Logic-Judgements even at the cost of values, and considering Republicans are more logical, it makes sense. Also, considering Fs use Value-Judgements even at the cost of logic, and considering Democrats are more value-centric than logical, it falls into place.

A friend, and INTP who espouses Democratic ideals, answered me when I question him about how such a logical person could be a Democrat. He told me that he just "feels" their way more. And that it wasn't logical. Well put. And he's about the only Democrat who I think can back up what he believes, because he actually understands why he believes it.

Funny thing is all these F Republican presidents. George "W" Bush being an ESFJ, Ronald Reagen being an ESFP. Maybe its the age of TV, being the news is mostly Democrats, even Republicans have to be F to get into high office.

Anyway, its just a thought. Well, here's another. Women who have low necklines (clotheswise) are Democrats. I used to watch C-SPAN a lot, and, IIRC, with the exception of one Democrat, all Republican woman had high necklines, and all Democrats low lines. That's in the House. The Senate can be strange though. Also, Republican men can't answer attacks very well, where Democratic men come off smothly, and make much better speakers.

I still think it all boils down to T versus F. Since it is judgement, it affects the way we dress and opine, amongst many other things.

But the Jungian acheatypes are probably the best out there but they still make poor labels.

If you get down to it, I'm more sure that N's make Democrats and P's make Republicans.

But honestly, ENTP's are probably encompass all of our politicians anyway. But I digress, I've known enough INTP's and ESTJ's to know that you really can't judge a person's capabilities and even resultant personalities by these labels.

For instance me, I'm [I/E]N[F/T]P. On every test I've taken, I'm either right on the edge or swit

But the Jungian acheatypes are probably the best out there but they still make poor labels.

Why? I think once they were codeified by Meyers, thery make excellent lables.

If you get down to it, I'm more sure that N's make Democrats and P's make Republicans.

Nah. Most of the Ns I know are Democrats. (Though they may vote Republican becuse of religous issues.) P as well, I see no such thing amongst the people I know. Though, this is still an ongoing search, so I'll have to keep my eyes open.

I agree with most of what you have just said... but let me clarify for a moment.

I don't know the fellow you were responding to, but if what you say is true, that he focuses more on teaching people, then he is most certainly an introvert. The only time introverts speak up in social situations beyond those including the very familiar is to convey ideas from that inner world, not because they are focusing on people and things. That "conveying ideas," is what we would commonly call teaching. He

I don't have a great amount of time to devote to this this morning, but I do wish to make a few statements...

There are clearly two kinds of debates. One kind involves defense based on logical analysis, the other kind involves justifying value judgements. TJ's clearly dominate the first category, FJ's can dominate both categories (please note that it is a lot harder for a TJ to understand the latter than it is for the FJ to understand the former, but it is not impossible). This is not just based upon my

There are clearly two kinds of debates. One kind involves defense based on logical analysis, the other kind involves justifying value judgements.

Hmm.. I agree on the logic versus values, but not "defense" and "justifying".

Many times debates start because one person makes a statement that the other person perceives as being incorrect. For example, if one person says, "women are as good as men in everything" my intuition flares up and says "no!". I don't necessarily "know" why my intuition said that, but d

I think that nit-pickiness about every little sentence really is a TJ thing, perhaps even an INTJ thing, because most people I know aren't like that; indeed, only the INTJ's are. I wrote it off as a TJ thing, but it really could be that it is even more differentiated as that. I know a LOT of INTJ's. Indeed, I seem to be surrounded by them. And a lot of INTP's. It's like I have some INT pheremone...

As I stated before, I really only know one person who I know for sure is an S, and she is an ISFJ. I thi

How can you disagree that in one type of debate defense involves justification of value judgements?

Because although it starts off because of it, the actual debate is to "prove", or to bring merit to the "weaker" side.

Were they only fielding questions regarding the few logic-based topics on their agendas? Or were they justifying programs or actions whose sole defense stems from their feeler appeal? If so, they were justifying the value judgements of their party.

I disagree. I have found many people who cannot understand logic at all, thus classified as neither Fs or Ts.

The "ditzy blonde" stereotype comes to mind (yes, there are actually people who fit it).

I have also had the pleasure of attending an Intro to Logic class (as a for fun elective, heh) which is mostly taken by the liberal artsy students who cannot or do not want to pass the prerequisite math class. (notice, singular there).

I'm an ISTJ. While I despise democrats, I'm not really enamored with republicans either. I just dislike republicans less.

One of the reasons I view republicans as the lesser of two evils is because I always feel like I know exactly where they stand on the issues. Their platform is plainly clear for the whole world to see, and even if you don't like it, at least you know what it is. Democrats change daily with the opinion polls, and that's no way to run a country!

I am as well an ISTJ, but I find many Republican ideals to be morally and logically reprehensible (they seem to use their logic very short-sightedly in my opinion). If you had to label me as either Republican or Democrat, my views are much closer to those of the Democratic Party when it had views (of late they seem to be simultaneously moving right and becoming more wishy-washy).

I think that people can use logic to draw whatever conclusion they like, and wind up supporting either (or neither) party.

Of course, most conservatives today are really liberals in the classic sense of the word, while most liberals today are really marxists or socialists. The whole spectrum has shifted left dramatically. There's not really many classic conservatives in america today (or anywhere else, for that matter).

I didn't say I really liked republican ideals, just that I could better identify what their ideals were. That alone makes me yield them at least a smidgen of respect. I have no idea what democrats want to do on any given day, except maybe protect the right to an abortion (about the only constant I can identify in democrats, but even then I know a lot of catholics who are democrats and they obviously don't support abortion, so who the hell knows! I that's what I'm talking about!).

Exactly. Logic has a general consistency. Values change by what is popular. And that is because, Logic finds truth impersonally, and Values, personally. So, Value-judgements care about other people's values, and as such, follows the public sways.

I think both should be used though. Logic to define the laws, and to judge them. Then Values, making sure we don't take logic too far, and to make sure that people get the help they need.

I came to it because when I started reading about the types (years after I had watched C-SPAN (C-SPAN was like 94-95, I read the book 02 maybe)). I just started typing people and trying to guess things about them. One thing I perceived/imagined that I was more consistant on was Republican/Democrat.

Anyway, I am saying it here so people will argue with me and show me where I am incorrect. Or at least for some entertaining dialog on the subject.:-)

Okay, I'm not an American so maybe I'm just out of touch here. Do over 50% of Americans have a registered party affiliation? I guess part of my reason was that I expected that most people (T's or F's) tend to be neither.

Probably not. Only some states have registration. Also, the US is mostly a two-party system. There are other parties, but mostly without significant representation. That leads people to vote for one of the major two parties, even when they don't necesserily agree with them, because they don't want to "waste" their vote.

I don't see a strong correlation between Thinking/Feeling and Rep/Dem. I've known more than a few Republicans of both genders who were _very_ much in the 'Feeling' camp. _IF_ women tend to be Democrats, then, I'd expect that it has more to do with which party will favor women's rights. Personally, I favor keeping abortions legal so we don't return to the days of illegal clinics where the clients die. I find the idea of _getting_ an abortion morally reprehensible, but the alternatives don't sound isn't an

Women tend to be Democrats.:-) Certainly more so than men. Given women the right to vote help the Democratic party significantly. Being more women are F than men (small studies show %70 of Women to be F as opposed to only %40 of men) I wonder if there is a correlation.

I'd expect that it has more to do with which party will favor women's rights.

That depends on what you consider "rights". Then again, I think the whole concept of "rights" is ridiculous.

The Democrats believe in defining a group and helping them, where the Republicans want to treat everyone equally.Ya know, my biggest problem with replying to people avidly in one camp or another is having to defend sides I don't like. And here I am doing it again...

Both parties say they want equality. Republicans see no need to add even more laws to the ever growing pile. More laws limits freedom and makes government even more unwieldy. Democrats, while overly fond of spelling things out in law, have

replying to people avidly in one camp or another is having to defend sides I don't like.

I know the feeling.

First, I consider myself somewhat Liberitarian. However, whenever I express that I need to explain that I don't mean the Liberitarian Party, which is just bunch of kooks. Also, I generally agree with the Republican way of doing things. Not because I think it is best, but rather, it is best for the times. Ultimately, however, I would promote a more Liberitarian approach. (Probably somewhere in betwee